Six Iranians arrested for dancing to promote islam
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
when a troll moron like Stu has no arguments left...
a troll pastes a few sentences out of context and pretends then has something something to laugh at.
no substance in the critiques... just out of context partial sentences.
That weak strategy is one of the last chapters of the troll playbook.
(its one of the strategies preferred by low content trolls)
a troll pastes a few sentences out of context and pretends then has something something to laugh at.
no substance in the critiques... just out of context partial sentences.
That weak strategy is one of the last chapters of the troll playbook.
(its one of the strategies preferred by low content trolls)
Doesn't it all really mean the same thing? The founders acknowledged a supreme intelligence that acted as architect. Understanding that freedom of religion was to be allowed and that government had no place in declaring which version of this creator was the true one, they tried to make it as generic as possible and still allow for the undeniable belief that there was, indeed, a creator of some sort.
Of course, this is just a guess, as I cannot say with 100% surety what the founders meant - as I was not one of them.
Exactly and totally consistent with the Establishment Clause.
Methinks you project too much.
Don't you know why you posted that natural rights can't be contingent upon beliefs of any particular culture - when all the time you're determined to delude yourself they can?
Don't bother. It's just another of your incoherent unthinking rambling ignorant religious ideas.
Yes, but as you say, what creator? Not God, I agree. The wording being so ambiguous it can mean anything to anybody.
Your emphasis toward religion is not in line with the Establishment Clause where it is made abundantly clear that in the first instance, it is religion that has no place in government. Not the other way round.
Then follows freedom of religion and correspondingly freedom from religion by the Free Exercise Clause, where government has no place in prohibiting religion, but isn't restricted from entering the religious area to reconcile it with the Establishment Clause.
All of this only reinforces the rather logical position that inalienable rights cannot be a God-given concept on any practical or rational grounds.
you stu are are the idiot troll who stated natural rights are inconsistent with there being a creator. Which is absurd.
then you tried to misrepresent what a Priest had to say about natural law predating the church. Of course natural law predates the chruch.
now you are trying to use your troll playbook to act to create fraudulent issues.
you are the troll trying to make arguments about particular cultures and beliefs.
you want to talk about culture... how about legal culture which proves you to be wrong... how about the world famous jurist William is Blackstone.... who lived around the time of the Declaration of Independence.
"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone (Eminent English Jurist)
then you tried to misrepresent what a Priest had to say about natural law predating the church. Of course natural law predates the chruch.
now you are trying to use your troll playbook to act to create fraudulent issues.
you are the troll trying to make arguments about particular cultures and beliefs.
you want to talk about culture... how about legal culture which proves you to be wrong... how about the world famous jurist William is Blackstone.... who lived around the time of the Declaration of Independence.
"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone (Eminent English Jurist)
Methinks you project too much.
Don't you know why you posted that natural rights can't be contingent upon beliefs of any particular culture - when all the time you're determined to delude yourself they can?
Don't bother. It's just another of your incoherent unthinking rambling ignorant religious ideas.